An interesting journalistic overview of the creationist worldview. Not as rigorous as Collins' 'BioLogos' or Ross' 'progressive creationism', but nevertheless another attempt to show how science and faith need not be mutually exclusive...

I'm still mulling over the various pathways mapped out for us by various men of science. I found myself hovering at number 2 and have been seriously challenged by our previous debate. I wonder what you think about dividing them up into a spectrum of six...

1 Ken HamLiteral creationismAs far as I know, he and his colleagues sign a statement vowing to never question scripture. I don't think they can be considered 'men of science' after making such a statement.

2 Hugh RossProgressive creationismI still don't know much about this guy - when I have time, I will look at his site.

These men all consider evolution to be the best explanation for life as we see it today and in the past (a shorter form would be to say they 'believe in evolution' but some scientists dislike the religious meaning of believe in this case).

What they believe about God is their own business and I have read Miller and Dawkins state as much. They agree that religion is not science and cannot be tested by science.

The main difference here is that Ham and the latter four (again, I don't know about Ross) agree that science CAN test specific claims a religion makes - and fall in opposing fields from the result.

NOMA and Punctuated Equilibrium are not the same thing, if you thought they were. Gould tried, and I think, failed, to make a case for Non- Overlapping Magesteria". His Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a sort of mechanism for evolution: Why do fossils show little change then suddenly new forms appear? Because evolution works best with small populations.

The best example is a mainland population that loses a few individuals to an island - a storm carries a log with a few animals on it or a bird drops a live pregnant female on the island, perhaps. That group will be more likely to evolve and change -yet, being smaller is less likely to leave fossils than the more stable, on-shore group.

For an excellent book on the subject, see if a local library has:http://tiny.cc/AG7cq

Oh, I would argue that 'spiritual Darwinism' descriptor for Miller. So would he. He studies Darwin and Evolution, not Darwinism nor evolutionism.

My take-home message is that the latter four agree on evolution but not religion - the two are not as tightly bound as creationists seem to think.

Yes, it was just a tentative list, really. Just wondered what you thought of it. I'm especially curious to know what you make of Francis Collins' faith, and how he attempts to reconcile it with evolution. In some ways, it is he who stands in between the extreme viewpoints of Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins. Perhaps the list should be reduced to three?

I'm still very much taken with Ross' work, since he's coming from a very biblical position. Our previous discussions have definitely made me question the Ken Ham school of thought. Then again, another part sees it as secondary to the centrality of Christ. You can have Christ and be scientifically in error, but if you're wrong about Christ then no amount of science will save you!